I am still boycotting amazon for thier one click patent and then sueing barnes and nobles with it. I remember when a lot of people were against them. I still am. They just haven't sued anybody lately because after the one click ordeal, they got Borders to give them thier online portal. Maybe also because they are more profitable of late.
When asked by the Supreme Court if a little old lady, in Switzerland, unknowingly giving money to a group invilved in terror activities would be considered a terror suspect, the Government's official position was "yes, of course".
As much as I don't like some parts of the patriot act and etc, This one makes sense.
If you give money to terrorist, it makes sense to be a suspect. How is anybody to know it was intentional or not unless the suspect is investigated? And you have to be a suspect to be investigated. Just because someone is innocent does not mean they can not be a suspect in an investigation. When cops look for a murderer, they may have many suspects but only one murderer. Being a suspect usually means that xyz has done or been somewhere suspicious- and if you ask me, funding terrorists is a mighty suspicious activity despite potential innocence.
They're just not big, seperate forks. Their work gets routinely folded back into Linus' fork. There's the personal forks like Alan Cox's -ac patch, Andrew Mortons' -mm patch, etc. Many architectures and sub-projects also maintain their own forks
I have seen this spoken several times now and it is sophistry. Those are not forks as defined in the article nor is it the normal meaning of forking something. A "fork" is defined as a change in fundamental direction of the project by which there can be no reconsiliation(sp?).
What you are describing is a "branch" or "subtree" or "normal development".
The article was poor BS that did not even get proper terminology correct but as far a forks, they used the right meaning while you are BS'ing (as well as other slashdotters spouting the same nonsense)
OEMs have plenty of reason to like this board. Now you can offer both AMD and Intel systems and don't have to bother about buying separate motherboards in bulk for both - with separate support.
I fail to see the allure.
As an OEM, I would want to have seperate models for my AMD offerings versus my intel ones for many reasons.
1. AMD chips are 64 bit.
2. Customers who prefer one manufacturer over another do not get confused.
3. Don't accidentally ship the wrong chip. I mean if someone was looking for a 64 bit chip and was accidentally shipped the Intel one, that could get problematic.
The OEM will want to make obvious destinctions between AMD and Intel offering just so that they ship the right processor to the right customers. Once you have to make that point, the idea that an OEM would want to streamline thier system to the point where you could use the same motherboard would seem pointless.
Nah!! Grandmaster Gary for President!! Imagine strategic armament talks between Bush and Gary!!
ROFL!
Gary will have Bush doin' the monkeyboy dance in no time!!
Actually I would be very concerned if Gary became the leader of any organization. He has DESTROYED every organization in which he has had power.
GMA - ever heard of it? It was an organiztion to help GM's get better purses and conditions for tournaments. Garry helped create it and then completely destroyed it (with no help needed).
FIDE - Almost destroyed FIDE and to this day FIDE is a much weaker organization. When Garry said I am world champion and the title is mine no matter what FIDE says and does, he cracked the "legitimacy" of FIDE. In This case Gary had help from Nigel Short.
PCA - An organization Garry created to give a world championship title. Got sponsorship from various companies including Intel. Eventually destroyed the organization because he wanted to play deeper blue. Goodbye PCA.
Ever since the PCA was destroyed, Garry has stayed away (or been kept away) from powerfull positions in chess orgs. and chess is much better for it!
I would be very concerned about Russia's Leadership if Garry Kasparov was ever elected president.
It contains every little obscure bugged that grandma Uxbuklu in outer Mongolia have ever encountered. And you want them to throw that away? That sounds great! If you're a Linux developer that is.
I would recommend you read what Joel has to say, since he say it so much better than I have time to do.
It is funny that Joel uses Netscape as an example because Mozilla 1.7/FireFox 1.0.1 are far superior product in comparison to the original Netscape code.
As a matter of fact I am going to use Mozilla as my example as well: .NET was an opportunity to fix all the design mistakes win32 made in its twenty odd years of development (and believe me when I say win32 is a HUGE mess). But instead of starting over like the mozilla team and creating a vastly superior product , they are going to sew.NET to the Frankenstien win32 which is layer upon layer of API's that are there to just replace mistakes and complexities of other API's going back to before 1995.
I would guess that the fact that IBM no longer supports OS/2 (along with being abandoned by everybody else) might be a clue.
It was either Linux or Windows for the future. I can dissagree with the choice they made but I can't dissagree with the fact that they needed to switch.
I wonder why Apple doesn't seem interested in dual cores though. Intel/AMD seem to be treating multicore tech as their way of getting SMP out of the power-user range, Apple doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with it even though POWER has had multicore ability for a really long time.
It comes down to Apple wants you to think "What an amazing computer" but AMD/Intel want you to think "What an amazing CPU".
Apple does not make chips. They buy them from other's (IBM at the moment) and slap them into thier systems. The only thing they care about in regards to CPU's is "can it get the job done". While AMD/Intel don't care about computers as a whole- only that thier product is inside it. So Intel/AMD are always trying to push the envelope of what a cpu can do while Apple is pushing the envelope in computer systems.
You might miss the subtle point but the difference is that Apple is not looking to push chip technology but rather, computer tech in general. While Intel/AMD focus on chip technology and not computers in general.
when Linux is really the work of thousands of developers who just send patches to him (and now other delegates too).
Every leader depends on the efforts of those working for them but that does not mean that great leaders are any less great. Linus LEADS. He is the "queen bee" and as such he makes sure the Linux kernel is a great piece of software though he does little "honey gathering" himself.
I have no firewall, or router. I'm running XP SP1. And I've never had a single problem (my virus scanner hasn't even had to do any work . . . and I have open shares, including an upload folder!).
I am going to assume that:
1. your modem has a firewall built into it (I know some models do).
2. Your internet provider is fire-walling you (I know some that do).
I have several logs on various firewalls that tell me how many intrusions were attempted on different boxes and the numbers are amazingly HIGH. Your box is either 0wned by someone on the internet (and you don't know it) or you ISP has been "babysitting" you because they know thier are many people out there like you.
Getting back to the article, I do tend to agree with the general idea that we are becoming a fast food people who just gobble information without thinking of where the information came from and what it represents.
I don't know what you are trying to say above but I for one am very happy I can "gobble information" with tools like google/google news, slashdot, yahoo!, and the many other websites I visit on any normal day. Sure I don't ponder all the info I am bombarded with. I couldn't even if I tried (just too much info) but I do feel like a more knowledgable/productive person than before the internet. YMMV.
Why does one French man's opinion make all of France look silly?
But it is not one Frenchman. The french have a reputation for being very snobish when it comes to thier language (Actually they have a reputation for being snobish in general).
When Judge Jackson gave his "findings of fact", I knew that Microsoft was never going to be the same:
1. Bill Gates said he wanted to give up more control of the company to others (Steve Balmer in particular).
2. Even though MS was not broken up, they were still found to be an abusive monopoly.
3. They started paying out huge sums of money to settle past grievances (SUN, Netscape, California, etc...).
4. The EU is still wants to curtail them further.
5. They are under carefull scrutiny when it comes to purchasing other companies or products.
They are a giant and as such, they can carry a lot of rot for many many years without ever worrying about it. But if this reporter is only smelling the faintest whiff now, he doesn't have a very good nose. I started smelling it over 5 years ago.
And no I don't think they are going to die anytime soon. Just that as Linux and Apple grow, Microsoft can't go for the jugular (with legal and illegal practices) like it did in the past. There is a leash around its neck called "convicted monopolist" (which I only wish was a much TIGHTER leash).
when I asked what she knew about IP law stated that is so different from other types of law it has its own bar exam. Unless you actually pass that exam you are not really qualified to work on IP cases or to give legal advice. She said she will not touch IP law in any form because, in effect, it would be malpractice
What I know is that:
1. you don't have to be a lawyer to file a patent.
2. you don't need to be a lawyer to do research on prior art.
3. you don't even have to be a lawyer to work in the patent office.
I get the impression that they are asking for help in working through the paperwork of the patent mill they have started up. I think what they are doing is morally wrong but not legally wrong.
Look at the new HP's 25p and 35p blades (Opteron-based) - a 2 processor 1GB RAM version is just some $1,700 more expensive than a 1 processor 512MB RAM version.
If you read the article you would know that only Linux and Solaris took any real advatage of multiple processors.
might as well buy cheaper hardware unless you are planning to use one of those two OS's
They aren't an enemy; they are a company out to make money. By calling them the enemy you ascribe malice to them that is unwarranted.
I think they do Maliciosly attack any technology that threatens thier OS monopoly. They try to keep Web standards to "IE only" thus forcing Web Surfers to have Windows. They try to make MS Office the defacto standard in bussiness thus forcing most bussiness machines to have Windows. They are trying to make windows audio/vidio formats the future "standard" with WMP thus forcing people to stay with Windows.
They push these propritary standards by providing them with thier OS (with exception of Office) and not providing them with any other OS (except perhaps Apple).
As a person who likes and uses Linux and would like to be able to interact with the rest of the world as easily as Windows users do, I find myself directly opposed to the strategies of MS. They are my enemy because they are trying to destroy my choice of computer experience down to just thier stuff.
I can not use IE/WMP or MS Office when I am using a Linux desktop so I use alternatives to those products (even when I am using a windows OS).
I suggest FireFox to as many people as I can to not only help give the user a better web experience, but to give MYSELF a better experience by hopefully forcing Web Developers to adjust thier IE Only compatibility standards.
I occasionally suggest OpenOffice to users but have a difficult time justifying it. MS really does have a solid product in MS Office.
I tell people to try to stay away from WMP and am quite happy that ITunes is doing well and that mp3 is still the defacto standard.
You may not find MS to be your enemy but I will fight them to keep/get my freedom to have a Microsoft free desktop (without having to sacrifice compatibility).
If they simply give up and admit they never had a case, then what kind of legal attacks from shareholders or the SEC might they they open themselves up to? At this point, mayby Darl is just trying to avoid personal liability and an assault on his own personal assets.
REDICULOUS!
Let us say that this scenario has any validity...
If that was the case Darl would be A LOT MORE low key in the press. If Darl and gang had kept everything mum, in the end NOBODY but SCO and IBM would have known about the case and IBM could have even seriously thought about settling or buying out SCO. But instead SCO forced IBM to defend its honor and give them the royal ass-whup treatment.
They wanted to cheat and they made every move to get what they deserved (slammed). The only justification is that Darl is a sociopath who has finaly been caught and should go to jail for:
1. destroying a linux company:
A. Backstabbing Caldera development
B. Backstabbing the kernel developers
C. Backstabbing Caldera customers
D. Backstabbing Linux's #1 corporate ally(IBM)
2. Starting a pump and dump scheme:
A. Yelling about ownership of licenses it did not own.
B. Claiming that Linux infringed on copyrights.
C. Yelling that they had TONS of evidence that will force IBM to give them billions for the alleged leak of code/contract/etc.
all in the hopes that IBM will buy them or that stockholders will believe them.
3. Firing ("or destroying" any reason to stay) the people that were doing real work at Caldera before Darl became CEO and hatched his evil plan.
Caldara might still have a future if the CEO office was still held by Mr. Love (real name) instead of Darl McBride. Darl McBride has shown how quickly a company can be destroyed when a REALLY REALLY bad CEO is at the top.
I don't believe that lawyers are always on the same side as the angels, but they're not the ones to blame this time. SCO is the party that brought suit - if there's smackdown to be done, SCO should be first in line...
If a competent lawyer said to thier client that they don't have a case, most clients would say ok- forget the whole thing (and either drop the idea or go to a more sleazy lawyer).
Lawyers who have sleazy clients are probably sleazy lawyers. Sleazy client says I want to sue billion dollar corporation for a billion dollars and sleazy lawyers says it will cost you xyz an hour pluss a percentage and I will do everything in my power to get what you want.
I won't say all lawyers are sleazy BUT THIER ARE A LOT OF SLEAZY LAWYERS and if they were not sleazy to begin with, many become so with the mantra of "I am getting paid to do this despite how I feel."
That comment may work for defense lawyers but not for prosecuting civil lawyers.
I would say most lawyers have earned thier reputation and only a few subdivisions of lawyers I have any respect for which are:
When Boise was the lead prosecutor against MS, I thought he seemed like a good prosecutor and I thought highly of him.
When he took the Al Gore election tally to the Supreme court I thought him to be doing what he moraly thought was right.
When he decided to accept the SCO case, I lost a lot of respect for him.
Maybe when Boise's firm decided to take the case, SCO assured Boise and boys that there was something legitimate but as this drama unfolds I have a difficult time of thinking of Boise as anything more than a pimp for hire.
We can thank Bill Clinton for this. Bill's policy was "Oh stop development and we will give you money." And of course N. Korea said "Ok Bill- thanks for the cash"... and later... "Hey you bomb guys said you needed more money to continue tinkering? Well we have some new funds for you". Everybody knew the treaty Bill made with N. Koreans was only good for wiping ones ass. Type "Clinton Korea" into google and you can read about it yourself. The first link gives a "pro Clinton" view (emphesising how complicated the issue was and how Clinton was really ellected to be a domestic hero) while many other links say "how stupid". The reason I will not give any specific links is because I believe that this is a case where the reader should do thier own research.
[Ubuntu] that's what I use and I love it as both server and desktop.
This statement is very immature and I am very surprised it got modded up. The parade of users mentioning thier favorite distro is just silly! It is not enough that a distro be cool/fun/stable/leading edge/fast/simple. The most important thing is for it to be supported by alot of OTHER people and companies.
I know nothing about Ubuntu and so it might be "the greatest thing since sliced bread" BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE ON A CORPORATE SERVER.
The reasons are:
1. Few people know it and even fewer who will give you a service/support contract based on it.
2. No outside vendors support it such as IBM, Oracle, etc.
3. Very little documentation. You can go into any bookstore and pick up a book on SUSE or RedHat.
It is great to use a cool distribution as a personal server or desktop but when in a corporate environment, don't f*ck around. Get a distribution that is known by alot of professionals and supported by alot of other vendors. That way one doesn't screw up a companies datacenter when they leave.
RedHat and SuSe have a large network of professionals and vendors supporting thier distributions which will assure a company can find support and services when the need arises. When upper managment says they want to use a product of a linux supported vendor (Oracle/IBM/Borland/etc..) or want to outsource some development or are adding a new administrator, does one want to have to justify using "favorite community supported" distribution (this includes Ubuntu/ Gentoo/ Mandrake/ Linspire/ Knopix/ AnyDickAndHarry and even Debian).
RedHat or SuSe may not be the best but in a corporate environment, it is very desirable to use a distribution with alot of resources (contractors/vendors/books/people) that a company can buy/rely on to get things done.
I know a lot of people who have amd 64 machines and from what they say and what I have seen, there are no real issues. The only problem is finding many applications (at the moment) that are 64 bit but all the 32 bit programs run just fine (including plain old win xp)
A simple database might be a single file containing many records, each of which contains the same set of fields where each field is a certain fixed width. Now then I clearly think that MySQL fits one or more of those definitions...making it a REAL DATABASE.....lol....wake up people.
What I think most people who talk about REAL DB'S are refering to is the ACID Test. I have not checked recently but for the longest time MySQL failed those requirements.
Apple is not Microsoft; programs written and compiled for 68k
processors still run on OS X, and will do for the forseeable future.
but OS X programs do not run on a 68k AND THAT IS THE POINT.
People keep arguing that 32 bit will be fine (which is true for a little while still) but what is the ADVANTAGE? If you spend a couple extra dollars, you get all the plusses of a 64 bit machine and a future you can be happy to embrace but if you buy a cheap 32 bit machine what are the plusses?
The G5 IMac looks like a better deal when one considers it is just as loaded as the mini and it obviously comes with a monitor and is a b4 bit machine and has all the improvements that IBM has added to the G5 generation of CPU's (which I am not as familiar with).
On the x86 side, it only costs a hundred bucks more to get an amd athlon 64 system which has:
1. more general purpose registers.
2. capable of handling far more ram.
3. Faster in most benchmarks (and that is in just 32 bit mode let alone the 64 bit mode. In 64 bit mode some math intensive apps are shown to be ammazingly better)
4. better memory controller.
5. A 64 bit system compatible with future software while still being compatible with existing software.
So yes I could buy a 32 bit machine but what is the ADVANTAGE?
People argueing with me in this thread keep saying "the world won't change so soon" or "what do you need 64 bit for" but NOBODY has tried to give ONE good advantage to buying a 32 bit machine over a 64 bit one. I on the other hand have mentioned several good reasons to go to a 64 bit machine. As a buyer, I see only upside to going 64 bit and no downside so that is my choice. If anyone wants to still buy 32 bit machines, it is no skin off my back. My policy is to look toward the future and not the past. If somebody can come up with a real legitimate reason NOT TO go 64 bit, I will respond back but otherwise, I am done with this thread. I did not write my original post to try to convince people of the merits of 64 bit. I only mentioned that it seems like a good deal but too bad it was not a G5 or I would pick one up (and I got modded as flaimbait).
You are not buying a 32 bit machine because you fear they will only ship 64bit binary in a few years? 1. They wil ship both 32 & 64 bit versions, adding a 32 bit version won't cost them anything. They can even make on binary file contains both and load appropriate version when it's excuted. 2. The day they decide to drop 32 bit support will come much later than when you feel your machine is too slow to run those shiny 64 bit only programs.
I think you are deluded.
1. There is little incentive for companies to have developers port applications from 64 to 32 bit (for any long period of time).
2. In 1995 when Win 95 came out (MS's first 32 bit OS), almost overnight everything became 32 bit only. Just wait until MS is only selling a 64 bit OS and I would think Apple will be even happier to go this route (considering it is such an incetive for people to buy new hardware).
It is only because Intel is dragging thier feet (because they banked thier future on the Itanic and now have to follow AMD's lead instead) is the writing not as obvious as it was in 1992. Apple has not quite transitioned OSX to 64 bit (or will it be OSY by then) but when Apple and Microsoft finally do provide a 64 bit OS, it will be more obvious to you as well.
As an offtopic side-note about "Moores Law"- If you have not noticed, "Moores Law" has slowed down tremendously in the last fifteen years. It used to be "doubles in speed every 6 months" to "doubles every year" to "doubles every 18 months" and now it is "doubles every 2 years". I am still happy running a machine that I built in 2000. A 64 bit machine I might build this year will probably be good to the year 2010 or longer.
Slashdot Mirror
This story being moderated up finally proves to me that the moderation system is far from perfect.
I am still boycotting amazon for thier one click patent and then sueing barnes and nobles with it. I remember when a lot of people were against them. I still am. They just haven't sued anybody lately because after the one click ordeal, they got Borders to give them thier online portal. Maybe also because they are more profitable of late.
As much as I don't like some parts of the patriot act and etc, This one makes sense.
If you give money to terrorist, it makes sense to be a suspect. How is anybody to know it was intentional or not unless the suspect is investigated? And you have to be a suspect to be investigated. Just because someone is innocent does not mean they can not be a suspect in an investigation. When cops look for a murderer, they may have many suspects but only one murderer. Being a suspect usually means that xyz has done or been somewhere suspicious- and if you ask me, funding terrorists is a mighty suspicious activity despite potential innocence.
I have seen this spoken several times now and it is sophistry. Those are not forks as defined in the article nor is it the normal meaning of forking something. A "fork" is defined as a change in fundamental direction of the project by which there can be no reconsiliation(sp?).
What you are describing is a "branch" or "subtree" or "normal development".
The article was poor BS that did not even get proper terminology correct but as far a forks, they used the right meaning while you are BS'ing (as well as other slashdotters spouting the same nonsense)
I fail to see the allure.
As an OEM, I would want to have seperate models for my AMD offerings versus my intel ones for many reasons.
1. AMD chips are 64 bit.
2. Customers who prefer one manufacturer over another do not get confused.
3. Don't accidentally ship the wrong chip. I mean if someone was looking for a 64 bit chip and was accidentally shipped the Intel one, that could get problematic.
The OEM will want to make obvious destinctions between AMD and Intel offering just so that they ship the right processor to the right customers. Once you have to make that point, the idea that an OEM would want to streamline thier system to the point where you could use the same motherboard would seem pointless.
Actually I would be very concerned if Gary became the leader of any organization. He has DESTROYED every organization in which he has had power.
GMA - ever heard of it? It was an organiztion to help GM's get better purses and conditions for tournaments. Garry helped create it and then completely destroyed it (with no help needed).
FIDE - Almost destroyed FIDE and to this day FIDE is a much weaker organization. When Garry said I am world champion and the title is mine no matter what FIDE says and does, he cracked the "legitimacy" of FIDE. In This case Gary had help from Nigel Short.
PCA - An organization Garry created to give a world championship title. Got sponsorship from various companies including Intel. Eventually destroyed the organization because he wanted to play deeper blue. Goodbye PCA.
Ever since the PCA was destroyed, Garry has stayed away (or been kept away) from powerfull positions in chess orgs. and chess is much better for it!
I would be very concerned about Russia's Leadership if Garry Kasparov was ever elected president.
It is funny that Joel uses Netscape as an example because Mozilla 1.7/FireFox 1.0.1 are far superior product in comparison to the original Netscape code.
As a matter of fact I am going to use Mozilla as my example as well:
.NET was an opportunity to fix all the design mistakes win32 made in its twenty odd years of development (and believe me when I say win32 is a HUGE mess). But instead of starting over like the mozilla team and creating a vastly superior product , they are going to sew .NET to the Frankenstien win32 which is layer upon layer of API's that are there to just replace mistakes and complexities of other API's going back to before 1995.
I would guess that the fact that IBM no longer supports OS/2 (along with being abandoned by everybody else) might be a clue.
It was either Linux or Windows for the future. I can dissagree with the choice they made but I can't dissagree with the fact that they needed to switch.
It comes down to Apple wants you to think "What an amazing computer" but AMD/Intel want you to think "What an amazing CPU".
Apple does not make chips. They buy them from other's (IBM at the moment) and slap them into thier systems. The only thing they care about in regards to CPU's is "can it get the job done". While AMD/Intel don't care about computers as a whole- only that thier product is inside it. So Intel/AMD are always trying to push the envelope of what a cpu can do while Apple is pushing the envelope in computer systems.
You might miss the subtle point but the difference is that Apple is not looking to push chip technology but rather, computer tech in general. While Intel/AMD focus on chip technology and not computers in general.
Every leader depends on the efforts of those working for them but that does not mean that great leaders are any less great. Linus LEADS. He is the "queen bee" and as such he makes sure the Linux kernel is a great piece of software though he does little "honey gathering" himself.
I am going to assume that: 1. your modem has a firewall built into it (I know some models do). 2. Your internet provider is fire-walling you (I know some that do).
I have several logs on various firewalls that tell me how many intrusions were attempted on different boxes and the numbers are amazingly HIGH. Your box is either 0wned by someone on the internet (and you don't know it) or you ISP has been "babysitting" you because they know thier are many people out there like you.
I don't know what you are trying to say above but I for one am very happy I can "gobble information" with tools like google/google news, slashdot, yahoo!, and the many other websites I visit on any normal day. Sure I don't ponder all the info I am bombarded with. I couldn't even if I tried (just too much info) but I do feel like a more knowledgable/productive person than before the internet. YMMV.
But it is not one Frenchman. The french have a reputation for being very snobish when it comes to thier language (Actually they have a reputation for being snobish in general).
1. Bill Gates said he wanted to give up more control of the company to others (Steve Balmer in particular).
2. Even though MS was not broken up, they were still found to be an abusive monopoly.
3. They started paying out huge sums of money to settle past grievances (SUN, Netscape, California, etc...).
4. The EU is still wants to curtail them further.
5. They are under carefull scrutiny when it comes to purchasing other companies or products.
They are a giant and as such, they can carry a lot of rot for many many years without ever worrying about it. But if this reporter is only smelling the faintest whiff now, he doesn't have a very good nose. I started smelling it over 5 years ago.
And no I don't think they are going to die anytime soon. Just that as Linux and Apple grow, Microsoft can't go for the jugular (with legal and illegal practices) like it did in the past. There is a leash around its neck called "convicted monopolist" (which I only wish was a much TIGHTER leash).
What I know is that:
1. you don't have to be a lawyer to file a patent.
2. you don't need to be a lawyer to do research on prior art.
3. you don't even have to be a lawyer to work in the patent office.
I get the impression that they are asking for help in working through the paperwork of the patent mill they have started up. I think what they are doing is morally wrong but not legally wrong.
If you read the article you would know that only Linux and Solaris took any real advatage of multiple processors.
might as well buy cheaper hardware unless you are planning to use one of those two OS's
I think they do Maliciosly attack any technology that threatens thier OS monopoly. They try to keep Web standards to "IE only" thus forcing Web Surfers to have Windows. They try to make MS Office the defacto standard in bussiness thus forcing most bussiness machines to have Windows. They are trying to make windows audio/vidio formats the future "standard" with WMP thus forcing people to stay with Windows.
They push these propritary standards by providing them with thier OS (with exception of Office) and not providing them with any other OS (except perhaps Apple).
As a person who likes and uses Linux and would like to be able to interact with the rest of the world as easily as Windows users do, I find myself directly opposed to the strategies of MS. They are my enemy because they are trying to destroy my choice of computer experience down to just thier stuff.
I can not use IE/WMP or MS Office when I am using a Linux desktop so I use alternatives to those products (even when I am using a windows OS).
You may not find MS to be your enemy but I will fight them to keep/get my freedom to have a Microsoft free desktop (without having to sacrifice compatibility).
REDICULOUS!
Let us say that this scenario has any validity... If that was the case Darl would be A LOT MORE low key in the press. If Darl and gang had kept everything mum, in the end NOBODY but SCO and IBM would have known about the case and IBM could have even seriously thought about settling or buying out SCO. But instead SCO forced IBM to defend its honor and give them the royal ass-whup treatment.
They wanted to cheat and they made every move to get what they deserved (slammed). The only justification is that Darl is a sociopath who has finaly been caught and should go to jail for:
1. destroying a linux company:
A. Backstabbing Caldera development
B. Backstabbing the kernel developers
C. Backstabbing Caldera customers
D. Backstabbing Linux's #1 corporate ally(IBM)
2. Starting a pump and dump scheme:
A. Yelling about ownership of licenses it did not own.
B. Claiming that Linux infringed on copyrights.
C. Yelling that they had TONS of evidence that will force IBM to give them billions for the alleged leak of code/contract/etc.
all in the hopes that IBM will buy them or that stockholders will believe them.
3. Firing ("or destroying" any reason to stay) the people that were doing real work at Caldera before Darl became CEO and hatched his evil plan.
Caldara might still have a future if the CEO office was still held by Mr. Love (real name) instead of Darl McBride. Darl McBride has shown how quickly a company can be destroyed when a REALLY REALLY bad CEO is at the top.
If a competent lawyer said to thier client that they don't have a case, most clients would say ok- forget the whole thing (and either drop the idea or go to a more sleazy lawyer).
Lawyers who have sleazy clients are probably sleazy lawyers. Sleazy client says I want to sue billion dollar corporation for a billion dollars and sleazy lawyers says it will cost you xyz an hour pluss a percentage and I will do everything in my power to get what you want.
I won't say all lawyers are sleazy BUT THIER ARE A LOT OF SLEAZY LAWYERS and if they were not sleazy to begin with, many become so with the mantra of "I am getting paid to do this despite how I feel."
That comment may work for defense lawyers but not for prosecuting civil lawyers.
I would say most lawyers have earned thier reputation and only a few subdivisions of lawyers I have any respect for which are:
criminal defense attorneys
criminal prosecutors
Contract Attorneys (handle mostly wills/corporate agreements/house buying and selling).
Most of the rest are worse than useless.
When Boise was the lead prosecutor against MS, I thought he seemed like a good prosecutor and I thought highly of him.
When he took the Al Gore election tally to the Supreme court I thought him to be doing what he moraly thought was right.
When he decided to accept the SCO case, I lost a lot of respect for him.
Maybe when Boise's firm decided to take the case, SCO assured Boise and boys that there was something legitimate but as this drama unfolds I have a difficult time of thinking of Boise as anything more than a pimp for hire.
We can thank Bill Clinton for this. Bill's policy was "Oh stop development and we will give you money." And of course N. Korea said "Ok Bill- thanks for the cash" ... and later ... "Hey you bomb guys said you needed more money to continue tinkering? Well we have some new funds for you". Everybody knew the treaty Bill made with N. Koreans was only good for wiping ones ass. Type "Clinton Korea" into google and you can read about it yourself. The first link gives a "pro Clinton" view (emphesising how complicated the issue was and how Clinton was really ellected to be a domestic hero) while many other links say "how stupid". The reason I will not give any specific links is because I believe that this is a case where the reader should do thier own research.
This statement is very immature and I am very surprised it got modded up. The parade of users mentioning thier favorite distro is just silly! It is not enough that a distro be cool/fun/stable/leading edge/fast/simple. The most important thing is for it to be supported by alot of OTHER people and companies.
I know nothing about Ubuntu and so it might be "the greatest thing since sliced bread" BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE ON A CORPORATE SERVER.
The reasons are:
1. Few people know it and even fewer who will give you a service/support contract based on it.
2. No outside vendors support it such as IBM, Oracle, etc.
3. Very little documentation. You can go into any bookstore and pick up a book on SUSE or RedHat.
It is great to use a cool distribution as a personal server or desktop but when in a corporate environment, don't f*ck around. Get a distribution that is known by alot of professionals and supported by alot of other vendors. That way one doesn't screw up a companies datacenter when they leave.
RedHat and SuSe have a large network of professionals and vendors supporting thier distributions which will assure a company can find support and services when the need arises. When upper managment says they want to use a product of a linux supported vendor (Oracle/IBM/Borland/etc..) or want to outsource some development or are adding a new administrator, does one want to have to justify using "favorite community supported" distribution (this includes Ubuntu/ Gentoo/ Mandrake/ Linspire/ Knopix/ AnyDickAndHarry and even Debian).
RedHat or SuSe may not be the best but in a corporate environment, it is very desirable to use a distribution with alot of resources (contractors/vendors/books/people) that a company can buy/rely on to get things done.
I know a lot of people who have amd 64 machines and from what they say and what I have seen, there are no real issues. The only problem is finding many applications (at the moment) that are 64 bit but all the 32 bit programs run just fine (including plain old win xp)
What I think most people who talk about REAL DB'S are refering to is the ACID Test. I have not checked recently but for the longest time MySQL failed those requirements.
but OS X programs do not run on a 68k AND THAT IS THE POINT.
People keep arguing that 32 bit will be fine (which is true for a little while still) but what is the ADVANTAGE? If you spend a couple extra dollars, you get all the plusses of a 64 bit machine and a future you can be happy to embrace but if you buy a cheap 32 bit machine what are the plusses?
The G5 IMac looks like a better deal when one considers it is just as loaded as the mini and it obviously comes with a monitor and is a b4 bit machine and has all the improvements that IBM has added to the G5 generation of CPU's (which I am not as familiar with).
On the x86 side, it only costs a hundred bucks more to get an amd athlon 64 system which has:
1. more general purpose registers.
2. capable of handling far more ram.
3. Faster in most benchmarks (and that is in just 32 bit mode let alone the 64 bit mode. In 64 bit mode some math intensive apps are shown to be ammazingly better)
4. better memory controller.
5. A 64 bit system compatible with future software while still being compatible with existing software.
So yes I could buy a 32 bit machine but what is the ADVANTAGE?
People argueing with me in this thread keep saying "the world won't change so soon" or "what do you need 64 bit for" but NOBODY has tried to give ONE good advantage to buying a 32 bit machine over a 64 bit one. I on the other hand have mentioned several good reasons to go to a 64 bit machine. As a buyer, I see only upside to going 64 bit and no downside so that is my choice. If anyone wants to still buy 32 bit machines, it is no skin off my back. My policy is to look toward the future and not the past. If somebody can come up with a real legitimate reason NOT TO go 64 bit, I will respond back but otherwise, I am done with this thread. I did not write my original post to try to convince people of the merits of 64 bit. I only mentioned that it seems like a good deal but too bad it was not a G5 or I would pick one up (and I got modded as flaimbait).
My "final answer" to all this is... "WHATEVER".
I think you are deluded.
1. There is little incentive for companies to have developers port applications from 64 to 32 bit (for any long period of time).
2. In 1995 when Win 95 came out (MS's first 32 bit OS), almost overnight everything became 32 bit only. Just wait until MS is only selling a 64 bit OS and I would think Apple will be even happier to go this route (considering it is such an incetive for people to buy new hardware).
It is only because Intel is dragging thier feet (because they banked thier future on the Itanic and now have to follow AMD's lead instead) is the writing not as obvious as it was in 1992. Apple has not quite transitioned OSX to 64 bit (or will it be OSY by then) but when Apple and Microsoft finally do provide a 64 bit OS, it will be more obvious to you as well.
As an offtopic side-note about "Moores Law"- If you have not noticed, "Moores Law" has slowed down tremendously in the last fifteen years. It used to be "doubles in speed every 6 months" to "doubles every year" to "doubles every 18 months" and now it is "doubles every 2 years". I am still happy running a machine that I built in 2000. A 64 bit machine I might build this year will probably be good to the year 2010 or longer.